July 6, 2016

The CIP 2016 Update is LIVE!

I am pleased to announce that after a lot of hard work, some stops and starts, and with the assistance of dozens of information professionals around the world, the 2016 revision to the CIP is now LIVE.

Here's how we got here:



So what's next? Well, the exam is live, so if you're a candidate or know someone who is or should be, you can:


Already a CIP? Nothing changes for you - you do NOT need to take the revised CIP to maintain your CIP status. Provided, of course, that you complete your 45 CEUs within the 3 years after you were certified and pay the CEU fees. If you did not do that within 3 years, your CIP has expired and you do in fact need to take it again.

I can't tell you how excited I am about this relaunch. I believe that this revision has made the CIP a stronger, better-written, more useful exam and that it will continue to grow into the premier information management designation in the industry.

Questions or comments? Feel free to comment here or ping me directly at jwilkins@aiim.org.

1 comment:

The Franchise said...

Looks like I'm the only "negative Nancy".

I took the sample exam. I actually passed it without studying. The problem is that the questions, as asked, include highly subjective materials. That bothers me as far as this CIP certification.

For example, "What sources of information would be most useful to troubleshooting an existing business process?"

The assumption is that help desk tickets should be considered. While useful, I don't find them to be the MOST useful - since if you're "troubleshooting an existing business process", the only way you'd know to troubleshoot - is the ticket history. It's assumed.

What would be MORE useful in order to troubleshoot, is to understand the answer to two questions:

1: What's it doing?
2: What SHOULD it be doing?

#1 is answered by status reports. #2 can only be answered with what the business requirements are at that time.


Another question: "Some users complain that they can find some, but not all, of their documents using the search portal. What is the most likely cause?"

In your world you think that the user doesn't have rights. I contest the question, because you said all of THEIR documents. "THEIR" implies they have rights to it because it's THEIRS.

Now, what you probably meant to ask is:

"Some users believe that documents are missing from their search results despite the keyword being valid for certain types of information. What's ONE POSSIBLE reason for this?"

In which case, it's either that the portal isn't configured to show certain documents, or that the user doesn't have access to them.


Here's another really silly one:

"Which approach to metadata entry will likely result in the highest accuracy and consistency over time?"

Now, I'm not sure who wrote this question, but clearly they don't understand what "HIGHEST ACCURACY" implies.

The only way to ensure the highest accuracy is to:

- Use MANUAL entry,
- From FIXED, STATIC lists and lookups,
- Against fields that are MASKED or otherwise limited in collection, including required fields,
- Where only a small number of fields require keying by a user.

The answer to just use OCR is short-sighted, because as we all should know by now, OCR is an imperfect science. An 80% accuracy is something to shoot for, clearly, but should not be considered "HIGHEST ACCURACY" when you've got a 20% delta, compared to a human being that can clearly select the right option from a dropdown and/or triggered via autofill, or barcode cover sheets generated from LOB applications (which require a user to manually prep and scan).

Goes on and on.

Also there is a HUGE bias on PDF and PDF/A. That's fine for certain applications, but should not be put forth as the be-all-end-all of records and content management. Photos are not suitable for PDF because they are not "documents" - they are photos, and should be archived as such (JPG, BMP, PNG, RAW, etc). Video formats are not compatible with PDF. Electronic forms that don't require print capability have no value being stored as a PDF.

When it comes time to distribute or externally display a document, RENDER IT as a PDF so that you don't need to store the PDF format. This allows you to append, rotate, etc. as needed without additional software or code.

My guess is, the feedback on the CIP was written around a finite list of applications that did not properly consider the wide variety of content and information management systems out there. That's a shame, really.